Hermeneutics is the study of the concept of systematic interpretation. Explaining, translating, assessing, and judging the value and truth of claims made at communication events is part of the necessary means. Theories related to the interpretation and characterization of the phenomenon of understanding are discussed in hermeneutics (Grey 130). The philosophical approaches from the study analyze texts, discourses, or other stories to determine what the author is saying or what can be learned about the text’s message from a fundamental perspective.
Hermeneutics can be divided into three categories: before the text, in the text, and after the text. It is a study of general interpretation philosophy and practices with several sub-areas (Grey 132). The first is traditional hermeneutics (including biblical hermeneutics), which refers to the interpretation of religious, literary, or legal material. The second is modern hermeneutics, which refers to all forms of communication, including written text, as well as a philosophy of language and semiotics. Finally, there is philosophical hermeneutics, which consistency refers to the analysis of text for a logical explanation.
The way one understands things is influenced by various factors and circumstances. The impact of cultural background, environment, and upbringing are, among other factors, how people perceive information, including different texts. The Bible has multiple stories with many interpretations, and that is why it is important to address the Bible text from the hermeneutics perspective. Hermeneutics is a branch of philosophy that helps interpret biblical texts. Since the issue of understanding and interpreting religious texts might be topical for many people, observing the hermeneutics of the biblical texts is an important and relevant objective. Interpretation techniques could be used in order to provide various possible interpretations of the bible texts and thus contribute to the awareness of the audience about the meaning of the Bible text.
Reference
Grey, Jacqueline. 2020. “Biblical hermeneutics: Reading Scripture with the Spirit in community.” The Routledge Handbook of Pentecostal Theology. Routledge, 129-139.
The most challenging and persistent debate of all time has involved religion. Every religious group in the world has a reference book that serves as both a source of divine enlightenment and a manual for carrying out their beliefs. Bevilacqua and Loop explain how Christians cite the Bible, whereas Muslims cite the Quran (149). The Bible is a body of teachings that purport to have been delivered by God to his prophets for spreading throughout all of human history which Christians use as a religious road map for achieving spirituality. The Quran is regarded as the best work of Arabic literature where Prophet Muhammad’s recitations of Allah are collected. The lessons contained in the Quran serve as mankind’s verbal instructions for following the ethical and just path. However, the Bible and the Quran do have a substantial number of similarities and differences. This essay compares and contrasts the two books and ends with a reasonable conclusion that while there are distinctions, these minor church-related concerns should not prevent the two faiths from understanding more about one another.
Similarities
Creation
Similar narratives about how the earth was created and how man began to exist on it can be found in both the Qur’an and the Bible. According to Qur’an 35:13, “[God] integrates Night to Day, and has subjugated the Sun and the Moon to His command”(Bevilacqua and Loop 151). This idea of Allah as the creator of the world, the placer of the sun and moon, and the most potent force in the universe is quite similar to the one found in the Bible (Bevilacqua and Loop 152). Then God decreed, “Let there be lights in the vast sky to distinguish between day and night,” according to Genesis 1:14 (Bevilacqua and Loop 153). The Bible also contains Genesis 2:7, God molded mankind from the mud or dirt of the ground and gave him breath by placing it in his nostrils.
The Qur’an (15:28, 29) echoes this creation of man: “Behold! The Lord said to the angels, “When I have fashioned him and put My spirit into him, I will form humankind from sounding clay, fashioned into a figure” (Bevilacqua and Loop 150). Both writings claim that the Creator made the sun and moon above the earth, revolving them following His plan. Both books agree that God formed mankind and gave him life.
Moral Codes
According to both the Bible and the Qur’an, the C1reator of the Word is the sole being who deserves reverence and worship. Both books include a list of unacceptable behaviors in others, whether they are contained in the Commandments or expressed elsewhere, as is frequently the case. The Creator harshly condemns the worship of any god other than God or Allah, as well as any contempt for Him, in all religions (Suraju and Badmus 40-43). For instance, the Creator emphasizes that people have rights, most notably the ability to make their own decisions, but there are restrictions on things like killing, stealing, deception, assault, and other behaviors that are meant to hurt other people. Suraju and Badmus explain that, outside of the bounds of the marriage bed, fornication and indecent behavior are prohibited in both books (48). Every book stresses the importance of abiding by social norms as they outlaw intoxication, suicide, and homosexuality as an offense.
Commandments
The fundamental principles found in both the Bible and the Qur’an appear to be extremely similar. The Ten Commandments of the Bible and the Qur’an are nearly identical, as in Qur’an 17:33, one should not take a life that Allah has declared to be sacred, and Exodus 20:13 of the Bible explains that one should not kill (Bevilacqua and Loop 170). Followers are commanded not to approach adultery because it is a disgraceful act and an evil that opens the door to further evils in Qur’an 17:32. The Bible continues to use this similar idea in Exodus 20:14, which states, “You shalt not commit adultery.” Again, virtually line by line, it is specified in both volumes who an individual cannot marry, including relatives. It appears that the Bible and the Koran have comparable ideas about how a devoted and “Godly” man should behave in each circumstance.
Differences
Authors
The angel Gabriel, acting under God’s precise instructions, revealed the Holy Qur’an to the Prophet Muhammad. Revelation is the ultimate source of inspiration without potential fault in the contents or the delivery of the message. According to Bevilacqua and Loop, the holy Qur’an is not the Prophet Muhammad’s word; it is the message of God (155). Christians hold that the authors of the Bible were driven by divine inspiration. As a result, they hold that Paul the Apostle’s letters or the Gospel of St. Mark, which was undoubtedly composed by St. Mark, represent the “Word of God.”
Route to Heaven
Contrary to Christian belief, the Qur’an rejects the concept of the Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). Jesus is revered as God in the Trinity and is regarded as having undergone the crucifixion and risen from the dead. According to Suraju and Badmus, the Quran’s teachings can be summarized as follows: Despite certain seeming situations that led certain adversaries to believe otherwise [Qur’an 4:157, 158 & 3:55 & 4:157], Christ was never crucified (35-38). He was not slain by the Jews; instead, He was carried up to God (Suraju and Badmus 35-38). Both hold that Hell is an eternal place, but Christians think that only they can enter Heaven because they read the Bible. According to Qur’an 4:124, if someone does good deeds and has faith, whether they are male or female, they will enter Paradise, and not the slightest harm will be done to them.
Alterations
Today’s Qur’an is identical to the version that was given to Muhammad. Absolutely no alterations to the content have been made. In the early years of Christianity, a council was summoned, and the elders and church fathers debated. The Roman (and Christian) Emperor Constantine presided over the debate (circa 324 A.D.) (Bevilacqua and Loop 160-161). The New Testament was given its current shape by this council, which also codified (systematized) fundamental Christian beliefs. As a result, certain writings lost their position as Scripture and are therefore not the same as they were originally written.
Conclusion
Contrary to popular belief, the proclaimed word and guidelines for followers in the Bible and the Qur’an are more similar. They are almost equivalent in terms of creation and the highlighted laws of the commandments. While there are distinctions, it is usually believed that these are more a result of man’s perception of the Bible than true contrasts. These minor church-related concerns should not prevent the two faiths from understanding more about one another, as the Qur’an can be compared to the original manuscript while the Bible cannot. To focus primarily on these parallels would indicate a limited understanding of both religions. When it pertains to Jesus Christ, the primary significant distinctions between the Qur’an and the Bible become clear.
Suraju, Suraju, and Saheed Badmus. “A Discourse on Differences and Similarities between the Qur’Ān and the Bible.” Ar-Raniry, International Journal of Islamic Studies, vol. 4, no. 1, 2017, pp. 31-54. Web.
The Bible among Myths by John N. Oswalt is among the best apologetics of the recent times. The book seeks to debunk the ideas, which secular scholars have been propagating in the recent years, that the Old Testament chapters of the bible are part of the Ancient Near East Mythology.
In essence, what Oswalt does in this book is to show that any arguments linking the Old Testament with the Ancient Near East Mythology are misguided. In so doing, Oswalt endeavors to make it plain to readers that literature from such scholars is misleading.
In a bid to achieve this goal, Oswalt chooses to approach the book from a polemical viewpoint to convey his point.
His introductory argument anchors on the assertion that in the last five decades much has not changed insofar as the content of the Old Testament is concerned, yet the perception of scholars has radically changed in the same duration (Oswalt 2009, 11-12).
Currently, most scholars have lost esteem for the Old Testament, and to them, it is just another Ancient Near East myth. Some scholars consider the Old Testament as ‘remarkably similar’ to Ancient Near East mythical literature associated with other Semitic religions that originated from the Ancient Near East.
Oswalt dispels this assumption by going to great depths to explain what a myth is in a bid to exclude the Old Testament from such definitions.
Oswalt accomplishes this task in the first section of the book, viz. the first five chapters, which explore the Old Testament alongside the Ancient Near Eastern myths to bring out the contrast between the two.
The second section of the book analyses the Old Testament from a historical perspective and eventually concludes that the bible is a historical account to a certain extent.
Chapter 1
The first chapter opens with an assertion that the bible is a key contributor to the Western world’s perception of reality.
The importance attached to the Bible’s contribution in this sense stems from the fact that it greatly influenced ancient Greek philosophy and it continues to influence the perception of the world to date. The influence of the Greek thought on contemporary world perception is explored.
The most illustrious aspects of ancient Greek thought that are inherent in the manner in which we perceive the world today are, according to Oswalt, the notion that human beings live in a universe and not a polyverse (Oswalt 2009, 21).
Oswalt endeavors to show how the Greek pattern of thinking fits in with the biblical perspective of the same. Therefore, he explores the Hebrew perspective of the same issue.
He notes that the Hebrew descendants were monotheists whose principal belief was that there is only one supreme God, who doubles as the creator of the universe.
God revealed himself and his will to humankind, and thus humanity is expected to obey the will and be rewarded or defy it and face punishment.
The notion of the integration of the Greek philosophy and biblical principles in today’s worldview manifests in the fact that the Greeks believe in the law of non-contradiction, which fits in well with the Jewish idea that God set himself apart from his creation (Oswalt 2009, 25-26).
Oswalt thus notes that logic or rational thinking, which the Greek are credited with as the originators, only came to be after humanity’s acknowledgement of God as the sole creator of the universe.
Oswalt refutes the emerging belief that logic and science can prosper without religion by arguing that the only thing that the two can deliver to humanity is destruction.
He notes that Hiroshima and the Buchenwald concentration camps are the best humanity can achieve through logic and science alone.
Chapter 2
In the second chapter of the book, Oswalt embarks on a mission to set the bible apart from myths by presenting different scholars’ definition of the term and trying to find the definition that suits the bible most.
He starts by pointing out the reductionist viewpoint, which has been assumed by scholars towards the bible since the 1960s. In an attempt to prove that the bible is unique and cannot be equated to Ancient Near Eastern myths, Oswalt examines different definitions of the term ‘myth’.
He carefully examines three definitions of the term and proceeds to show why the bible does not fit with each of the definitions. Specifically, the first definition claims that the most outstanding feature of a myth is the falsity of the narrated occurrence or deity in the narrative (Oswalt 2009, 33).
The distinctive feature of the second definition is that it notes that truth in a myth is relative so that if many people think the myth is true then it is truer than otherwise. In the third definition, events in myths are neither right nor wrong (Oswalt 2009, 38).
All the three perspectives of a myth espouse the idea of continuity, which claims that all matter in the universe is the same thing. The example employed in the book to explain this idea is that of a man and a tree being the same thing both physically and spiritually.
The fact that the underlying principle is the idea of continuity behind the myths leads Oswalt to define myth in his own way as ‘continuity’.
Oswalt thus notes, “Myth exists to actualize continuity” (Oswalt 2009, 45). From such a position, he is in a position to explicitly outline the intrinsic characteristics of the Christian and pagan perspectives of the world later in the book.
Chapter 3
The third chapter is dedicated to explaining the philosophy of continuity deeply to give clear concept of its assertions as well as Oswalt’s beliefs insofar as the idea is concerned.
All myths have, at their heart, the concept of continuity in which humanity, nature, and the divine are all part of one another.
There is an interconnectedness, which links the physical, the spiritual, and the divine such that their existence is a circular continuum. Continuity is thus a worldview whose essence is mythical thinking.
Oswalt analyses continuity with the intent of articulating its aspects in relation to religious thought. He notes that continuity, if approached from the perspective of a worldview, has numerous effects.
Chief among the effects is the idea of associating some natural signs with certain phenomena (Oswalt 2009, 50-56) that if a certain sign manifests in nature, it symbolizes the arrival or departure of some phenomena.
As an example, he tries to point the link between floods, plagues, and weather patterns among others with reality. Another good example that shows the effect of continuity is given by the use of magic to manipulate the universe in one way or another.
Oswalt gives several other effects of continuity, and in essence, his argument is that myth is nothing, but a way of looking at reality. He proceeds to delineate definitive features of myths. Among them, all, but a few myths, share the idea that there are numerous gods.
Chapter 4
In this chapter, attention shifts from examining the features of myths to examining the features of the bible. In essence, Oswalt moves from the continuity worldview to give a biblical worldview, which he calls transcendence.
The main idea behind transcendence is that God exists apart from the universe and there is no continuity between the physical and spiritual planes.
According to Oswalt, transcendence manifests in everything that the bible highlights about reality and he explains the distinctive features of the Old Testament such as monotheism, iconoclasm, and the value attached to humankind coupled with the origin of acceptable ethical standards (Oswalt 2009, 64).
A key feature of the bible that emerges from the description is that apart from the bible religion, viz. Christianity, all other religions are polytheistic except Judaism and Islam whose origin is accounted for in the bible.
Thus, the key feature of the Old Testament in this respect is that Yahweh is the one and only God. This feature also applies to the rest of the bible. A different key feature of the bible is that before the universe came to be, God already existed.
Thus, God created anything that exists in the universe out of nothing, which is a distinguishing feature of the bible. Another distinguishing feature of the bible in chapter four is that humanity is held in high esteem unlike in myth where humans are lowly creatures.
This assertion by Oswalt fits in with the idea that man was created in the image of God and he was given authority over all creation. Several other features of the bible are described, but all of them point to the idea that transcendence underpins every distinguishing feature of the bible.
Chapter 5
Oswalt proceeds with his argument on why the bible is not a myth. This pursuit compels him to explore the ethical standards demanded of humanity in an attempt to show that the Ancient Near East and other secular world perceptions.
Therefore, he expounds the concept of ethics from the perspective of the Ancient Near East and other secular worldviews. Oswalt notes that these worldviews held two distinct standards of ethics. Of these two, the first standard delineates how humankind should interact with its own.
Concisely, it defines what is expected of every individual insofar as relating with one another is concerned. The other standard of non-biblical ethics explained how humankind was supposed to relate with numerous gods, which myths claim to exist.
Every god had a particular way in which humanity was supposed to approach him/her and carry out his/her instructions. This aspect sets the bible apart from myth completely because in the bible, God set a single standard of ethics for humanity.
The standards that were expected of humankind when Christianity began are the same standards expected of humanity today because the God of today is the same God that existed even before he created anything (Oswalt 2009, 85-87).
The idea of same ethical standards for all humanity leads Oswalt to compare the similarities that exist between Israelites and non-Israelites.
He outlines a number of areas, which exhibit similarities between the two groups, but he is quick to point out that such similarities are a matter of coincidence.
He does not believe that such similarities were intended to exist between the two groups. His main point as he closes the first section is that the bible’s perspective is unique and distinct from other perspectives and thus it is not a myth.
Chapter 6
The second section of the book begins with this chapter. The gist of Oswalt’s argument in this section is the historicity of the Old Testament. He is keen to note that the widely accepted historical ideology came from the bible.
In a bid to prove this argument, he begins by examining the definition of history. Though there are several definitions, he examines them and coins his own, which he believes is the best.
The theme of his definition is that for a text qualifies as history, it has to focus on human activity in “time and space, exist for the purpose of human self-knowledge, attempt to be an accurate account, and include an attempt to evaluate” (Oswalt 2009, 113).
With this definition in place, he proceeds to examine other ancient pieces of writing. His intention is to point out that the writing may be insightful in giving an idea about ancient culture and other aspects of life, but clearly, they meet the criteria for qualification as history.
The different ancient forms of writing are listed and the purpose for each of them outlined, but all of them are found to fall short of qualifying as history because they distort the true account of events or they unnecessarily focus on particular individuals at the expense of many among other reasons.
Oswalt then proceeds to point out how the bible is different from other forms of ancient writing.
He endeavors to prove that the bible fits into the definition of history he coins because the bible, unlike other forms of ancient writings, depicts humans as fallible characters who have notable flaws inherent in the human nature (Oswalt 2009, 124-127).
He uses the outstanding example of King David who is hailed as the greatest king in the bible, but he committed adultery and murder of a woman’s husband.
Chapter 7
In this section, since the author has already concluded that the bible is history, he sets out to dispel the arguments leveled against the historical nature of the bible.
He notes that some of the issues that have cast doubt on the bible’s historicity include revelations and supernatural events, which were associated with the Israelites. Oswalt proceeds to note that God was keen on ensuring that Israelites recorded true accounts of their experiences.
The main point that comes out here is that the bible points out clearly that God has made everything that is known to humans known via human-historical experience. Oswalt is keen to point out to the reader that the bible is an accurate account of the past.
The idea of accuracy and history features in his definition of history earlier in the book. According to him, accuracy is one of the key yardsticks for determining what is historical and what is not.
Thus, in the case of the bible, God preternaturally manifested his being to the Jews to make sure that whatever they chronicled was a true record of what they had seen and heard.
This aspect, according to Oswalt, qualifies the bible as historical despite the criticisms leveled against it. He is also careful not to touch on biblical passages, which would discredit his argument on the historicity of the bible.
Chapter 8
In chapter eight, Oswalt continues to argue his case about the accuracy of the bible, which makes it historical.
Therefore, chapter seven and chapter eight are somewhat like a single section for they address the problems associated with history in an effort to distance the bible from such problems and prove beyond doubt that it is indeed historical.
Like in the previous chapter, his energy is directed towards proving that the bible is a historically accurate document. With this knowledge, he urges the reader to note that the entire bible is historical because books included therein give accounts of real people and their patterns of life.
An important element of the accounts is that it does not attempt to hide their flaws, which typically picture them as ordinary humans. Oswalt goes a little bit deeper to bring out what the term history really means.
In so doing, he uses the German and Norwegian versions of the term Geschichte and Historie respectively. He shows how the translation of the term into different languages could distort the underlying meaning.
He notes that the German version refers to a narrative while the Norwegian version refers to an actual event (Oswalt 2009, 157).
In concluding this section, Oswalt notes that the bible is historical and that its historical nature cannot be isolated from theology because the essence of theology is history and to crown all these arguments, he quotes Apostle Paul who wrote that faith could not exist if people do not believe in Jesus Christ’s resurrection, which is a historical event.
Chapter 9
This section is the penultimate chapter of the book. Oswalt thus begins to lay the ground for his conclusion. He does this identifying a few scholars who have given alternative viewpoints on the bible.
Among those he identifies are “John Van Seters, Frank Moore Cross, William Dever, and Mark Smith” (Oswalt 2009, 172). What Oswalt does at this point is to debunk the viewpoints of all these scholars by identifying a key idea in their work and pointing out how it is misguided and thus false.
He begins by critiquing Van Seters’ claim that Jewish priests tampered with the bible after the Babylonian exile so that according to this scholar, the bible is not in its originally intended form (Oswalt 2009, 172).
Oswalt refutes this assertion and points out that it is false. He also refutes Cross’ claim that the bible was an epic poem before being changed to what it is today (Oswalt 2009, 175).
In the two instances, Oswalt position is that the bible has never undergone any alteration or changes save for translation into different languages.
Oswalt proceeds to debunk other viewpoints from scholars such as William Dever who firmly believes that the Judaic belief system was similar to the Canaanite belief system, yet the similarities were ignored by scholars thus pitching the Israelite belief system as unique when it actually was not.
Oswalt rejects this perspective as misguided and false, as to him, this kind of literature misleads its readers. Oswalt also rejects Mark Smith’s argument, which claims that the Israelite system of belief traces its roots to the Canaanite polytheistic belief system (Oswalt 2009, 181).
This argument undermines the accounts of the bible, which it records that only one God existed before creation and he created everything that exists in the universe. In essence, it undermines the concept of transcendence as elaborated by Oswalt in chapter four. Thus, it cannot hold as true.
Chapter 10
This chapter is the concluding section of the book whereby Oswalt sums up all his key arguments, which allows him to take a strong stand that the bible is a unique and special writing and is thus not a myth.
The major ideas he conveys are the disparity between the biblical worldview or biblical perception of reality and the secular or non-biblical perceptions of the world.
He is keen to point out that the biblical perspective finds its essence in the concept of transcendence while the non-biblical perspective has its essence in the concept of continuity.
In a bid to make his point on the superiority of the bible over Ancient Near East literature and other non-biblical writings, he points out that the Western world has embraced the worldview of continuity, hence the downturn in morality that is witnessed in its societies.
Here, he further propagates the idea that nothing good can come out of humanity if the influence of God is missing. Therefore, the bible cannot fall within the precepts of the definition of a myth.
Reference
Oswalt, John. 2009. The Bible among the myths: Unique revelation or just ancient literature? Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan.
I agree with the notion that the Bible is God’s story. People make their desires and beliefs a central part of the Bible when, in reality, they are not supporting characters of the story. The next idea that fits my thinking is that to understand the Bible, one must refer to history because the Scripture was written according to historical events. Knowing the genres of each book in the Bible is also crucial for a better interpretation of God’s Word. Once a person identifies the style, he or she is able to draw strategies when learning. For example, in the Gospels, the life of Jesus Christ was documented, and this book delivers the good news about Jesus’s death for people’s sins. The last idea that I support is that the Bible does not necessarily have to direct people throughout their lives. According to Cartwright and Hulshof (2019), “Instead, the Bible tells us the path that God chose to redeem humanity”.
Triangles
One of the angles I have never considered before is that the purpose of the rules established by God in the Bible was to remind people that they, by their nature, will never be able to follow them correctly. Additionally, I did not think about the detrimental consequences of taking biblical figures as role models. By doing this, people miss the characters to which stories in the Bible are addressed. Although I knew that the Bible points to Jesus Christ, I did not think that people should not consider believers in the Bible, who follow God obediently, role models. Lastly, it is interesting that God planned to redeem humanity and restore relationships with people.
Circles
When will God’s plan come into reality? I am curious about the time when God will realize his plan.
Does the power of God lie in his grace or his law?
Hearts
I loved the idea that God has a plan for people. There are no random people, events, or circumstances in the Bible. Instead, God foresaw everything and realized his plan in a way that glorifies him and his son. On the other hand, people always face challenges and obstacles that they are unable to predict. This forces them to change their plans and think of an alternative way. In Proverbs 16:9 (New American Standard Bible), it says that “The mind of man plans his way, but the Lord directs his steps.” This means that God’s plan is purposeful, he directs people and slowly introduces changes in human life to make what he designed possible.
The 1st Response
The first author mentions the theological view of the Bible as one of the ideas that fit his perception. He agrees that God is aware of everything and guides people throughout their lives. According to Cartwright and Hulshof (2019), “We are not the principal or even supporting characters in the Bible.” This implies that God is the only main character in the Bible, and the story is created around him, revealing his great personality. The next idea that the first author mentions is the aim of Jesus Christ in God’s story. He was sent to humanity to show the extent to which God loves people. One of the ideas that the author has never considered before is that there is a connection between the Old and New testaments. Indeed, the story of God goes beyond Jesus Christ’s arrival on the Earth, meaning that his plan was envisaged. Moreover, the story is supported by the historical events that make it possible to observe transitions from one occasion in the Bible to the other. The idea the author loved is that there are more implications of the Bible than its practical value. The Bible reveals the road that God chose to rescue and redeem humanity.
The 2nd Response
The second author believes that there are no circumstances, and everything is predestined. According to Cartwright and Hulshof (2019), “Each word of Scripture is designed to move the plan forward in a way that glorifies God and points to Christ.” This means that everything that happens in one’s life has a reason. Another point is that it is easy to make stories in the Bible fit one’s life and circumstances. However, it can be dangerous because it misleads the reader and results in Scripture misuse. The angle that the author has not considered before is that Christ’s blood has the capacity to redeem and rescue. As Cartwright and Hulshof (2019) put it, “In this great exchange, we inherit his righteousness, and he takes our sin.” To walk in grace, one has to acknowledge Christ’s flawless life. Another angle is that Christ was sinless even in the time people did not hear about him, before the beginning of his mission. His sinlessness might be explained by the fact he was a child not spoiled by the worldly life. Finally, the idea that the author loved was that God held his plan from the beginning of times when the first people appeared. Since then, everything that happened was envisaged and controlled by the Lord.
References
Cartwright, J., & Hulshof, C. (2019). Everyday Bible study: Growing in the Christian faith. (B. Gutierrez, & G. Etzel, Eds.). BH Academia.
Letter to the Hebrews, a mysterious manuscript with no official authorship, introduces comparisons between many people and events of the Old Testament Scripture and Jesus, in order to elevate the latter as superior in many aspects. Although it is unclear who exactly the author’s audience is, the tone of voice is familiar and addresses the reader as someone the writer is familiar with. Additionally, the author is someone who is acquainted with the Apostles and their teachings.
In the first insight, the author begins discussing Jesus as the best line of communication with God. The author compares Jesus to angels, and in doing so, directs the readers to understand the superiority of Jesus’s messages as God’s word (King James Bible, 1769/2017). This aspect of Hebrews is vital to becoming aware that the son of God is the most important messenger. The author explains this by recalling the Torah delivered by the angels and its meaning. The author specifies that if the people of Israel accepted the words delivered by Angels, the son of God has even more valuable information.
In the second insight, the author directs the letter to describing Jesus as hope for the new creation by comparing Him to Moses. Moses is known to have built the Tabernacle, while the author explains that Jesus is not only the creator of a tent but of everything in existence (King James Bible, 1769/2017). The author also recalls the rebellion against Moses and that those that rebelled had lost entry to the promised land. In a similar manner, the author hints that rebelling against Jesus may lead to being kept out of God’s new creation.
Prior to Jesus, animal sacrifices had to be made daily and yearly on the day of atonement. Jesus’s sacrifice was done once and would last forever, as it was sufficient to atone for the sins of the entire world (King James Bible, 1769/2017). As such, the author implies that rejecting Jesus’s sacrifice would be rejecting God’s offer of forgiveness.
It was the author’s aim to depict Jesus as God’s most important messenger, the hope for new creation, a priest that is with flaws and a sacrifice that is permanent. As such, the author invites the reader to consider the importance of Jesus in their own lives. The scripture motivates the reader to keep faith during hardships and to remember Jesus as a priority. In my own life, it reminds me to value Jesus over material goods, advancing in my career or studies and a convenient lifestyle.
Reference
King James Bible. (2017). Cambridge University Press. (Original work published 1769).
The Bible and Qur’an have many similarities including writings and beliefs regarding the creation and 1the 0 Commandments. They are each considered Holy books and the revealed word of our Creator. In each case, these words have led to the development of a major system of religion with several renditions such as the Lutheran and the Catholic or the Shiite and the Sunni. Instead of always trying to fight that one religion is wrong and the other is right, perhaps it would be better to consider where they are the same and where they might have differences. Perhaps those differences aren’t so great as to cause such hateful and hurtful wars. Both of these Holy Books share several major similarities and some differences regarding their basic concepts, moral codes, and practices.
Similarities
Creation
Both the Qur’an and the Bible have similar stories regarding how the earth was made and the man came to live on it. In the Qur’an, 35:13 – [God] merges Night into Day, and He merges Day into Night, and He has subjected the sun and the moon [to his Law]: each one runs its course for a term appointed. Such is Allah your Lord: to Him belongs all Dominion. And those whom ye invoke besides Him have not the least power. This concept of Allah as the world’s creator, organizer of the sun and moon, and the most powerful being in our universe compares quite closely to the Bible. In Genesis 1:14 it is stated – Then God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the heavens to separate the day from the night, and let them be for signs seasons sons and days and years.” The Bible is a bit more verbal, but also includes Genesis 2:7 – Then the Lord God formed man of dust from the ground, seasons sonsAdultery and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living being. This creation of man is echoed in The Qur’an 15:28,29 – Behold! thy Lord said to the angels: “I am about to create man from sounding clay from mud molded into shape; when I have fashioned him (in due proportion) and breathed into him of My spirit fall ye down in obeisance unto him.” Both books indicate that it was our Creator who placed the sun and the moon above us, rotating according to His design and that the Creator fashioned mankind out of the dust or clay of the earth and then breathed into him to give him life.
10 Commandments
The cardinal rules of the Bible and the Qur’an also seem to match up very closely. The Qur’an and 10 Commandments of the Bible match up well almost line by line such as Qur’an 17:33 Nor take life which Allah has made sacred and the Bible’s Exodus 20:13 You shall not kill. In the Qur’an 17:32, followers are instructed, Nor come nigh to adultery: for it is a shameful [deed] and an evil, opening the road [to other evils]. This same concept is carried forward in the Bible through Exodus 20:14, You shall not commit Aadultery In both books, it is listed whom a person cannot marry, such as family members, again, almost line by line. In each case, it seems the Bible and the Koran share similar concepts regarding how a pious and ‘Godly’ man should conduct himself.
Moral Codes
Both the Bible and the Qu’ran insist that the Creator of the Book is the only being that should be worshipped and given tribute. Whether within the Commandments or stated elsewhere, as it often is, both Books provide a list of what is not acceptable behavior among other men. The Creator in both religions severely punishes the worship of any deity other than God or Allah Himself as well as punishing any disrespect shown toward Him. For example, the Creator insists that humans have rights, most importantly the right to choose, but there are prohibitions placed on murder, theft, lying, violence, and other actions intended to cause harm to another. In both Books, fornication and lewd behavior are forbidden outside of the confines of the marital bed. Each Book insists that society’s laws must be obeyed. Intoxication and suicide are forbidden in both and homosexuality is considered a sin in both.
Differences
Path to heaven
The Qur’an does not believe in the Trinity while Christians believe in the Trinity (Father, Son, and Holy Spirit). As a member of the Trinity, Jesus is viewed as God Himself and worshippers believe that Jesus was crucified on a cross and raised from the dead. The Quranic teachings in this regard may be summed up as follows: Christ was neither crucified nor killed by the Jews, notwithstanding certain apparent circumstances which produced that illusion in the minds of some of the enemies; and Jesus was taken up to God [Qur’an 4:157, 158 & 3:55 & 4:157]. Both believe that Hell is eternal but according to Biblical interpretations by Christians, only Christians can get to heaven. The Qur’an 4:124 declares: ‘If any do deeds of righteousness – be they male or female – and have faith, they will enter Paradise and not the least injustice will be done to them.’ In other words no religion has a monopoly on salvation.
Authors
The Holy Qur’an was revealed (‘revelation’ [wahi] is the highest form of inspiration with no possibility of error in the message or the conveyance of the message) to the Prophet Muhammad, p.b.u.h. through the angel Gabriel who was carrying out God’s precise instructions. This occurred over a period of 23 years. The holy Qur’an is God’s Word – not the word of the Prophet Muhammad. Christians believe that divine inspiration (the Latin word is ‘afflatus’ which means ‘divine wind’) inspired the writers of the scripture. Hence they believe that the Gospel of St. Mark (obviously written by St. Mark) or the letters of Paul the Apostle is the “Word of God.”
Alterations
The Qur’an exists today the same as it was revealed to Muhammad. There have been absolutely no changes whatsoever made to the wording. A council was called, in the early days of Christianity, where the church fathers and elders debated. This was presided over by the Roman (and Christian) Emperor Constantine (circa 324 A.D.). This council codified (systematized) standard Christian belief and gave the New Testament its present form, depriving some books of the status of Scripture and thus is not the same as it was originally written.
Conclusion
The Bible and the Qu’ran are more similar in the revealed word and the instructions for followers than many would like to believe. In many ways, they match up perfectly. In terms of Creation and the emphasized laws of the commandments, they are nearly identical. While there are differences, these are frequently seen to be more man’s law or interpretation rather than actual scripture. Since the Qu’ran can be compared to the original manuscript and the Bible cannot, these smaller church-related issues should not get in the way of the two faiths learning more about each other.
Works Cited
The Holy Bible, King James Version. New York: American Bible Society (1999). Bartleby.com.
Qur’an: The Final Testament (Authorized English Version) with Arabic Text. Trans. Rashad Khalifa. Fremont: Universal Unity. (2000).
Christianity is arguably one of the largest religions in the world. Christians use the Bible as their source of spiritual reference and for various teachings. The bible has many teachings and spiritual themes which guide the Christians through different aspects of life. There are different themes that are continuously dominant in the bible which act as pillars for Christian living. Others are less pronounced and they may only have localised attention though their importance in day to day Christian life is still valuable.
Merciful punishment
Perhaps this is one of the most important themes in the bible, the pillar and the basis of Christian faith and foundation. It can be argued that Merciful punishment plays the central role in the Christian faith. God is the supreme judge who judges good and evil, he alone can administer justice and punishment according to the commands that he has given out in the bible. As much as he is the supreme judgeand the source of punishment for those that defy his commandments, he does it in a merciful way.
Throughout the bible he always gives fair treatment and gives an exit plan for those who wish to follow his ways. In addition his punishment is based on true love and as such his punishment should be seen as an act of love to his own creation. Merciful punishment meant to bring back to the righteous path those who in one way or another have defied his ways.
The bible continuously expresses the theme of merciful punishment and this can be seen in the ultimate idea of the God’s only son Jesus Christ who came from the throne to the world. He came to live as an earthly man so that he can understand man’s weakness and eventually be crucified to carry away man’s sin. According to Camping, “Christ would obediently endure God’s wrath on their behalf. For only then can God’s holy justice be completely satisfied” (Camping 1).
Throughout his stay in the world he had the chance to relate with man and preach the message of hope and redemption from sin. Having to leave the heavenly throne and to come and suffer as a man in the world is arguably an act of mercy. Through him justice and punishment is eventually found.
The whole idea of God sacrificing his own begotten son to die on the cross for the sin of mankind is an act of merciful punishment. He doesn’t just impose punishment to the sinners but due to his mercy, he provides a valuable exit from the ultimate eternal fire punishment by giving his only begotten son, through which salvation is provided – Luke 2. 52:“For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but have eternal life” (The Bible 712).
Merciful punishment can also be seen on the whole story of the children of Israel. God decides to deliver the children of Israel from captivity in Egypt and he uses Moses to deliver them. After a long struggle with Pharaoh the Israelites are eventually delivered and begin perhaps one of the longest and phenomenon journeys in the bible. It is believed that the journey was to take the shortest time possible but that was not the case. They stayed in the wilderness for a period of 40 years.
The events that happened in the wilderness clearly demonstrated the theme of merciful punishment. The Israelites used to stray away from Gods ways and in return God used to punish them with catastrophes, not because he hated them but because of his mercy. Through the punishment they would come back to their senses and seek his face in which he would forgive them and lift the punishment and life would continue. However it used to take a little time for them to forget about his love and mercy and
Go back to their evil ways. It is important to note that no matter how many times they strayed, God always instilled a punishment that always brought them back to him.
There are two particular events in the bible that demonstrates merciful punishment, the event by which God wiped out the sinful world through flood and with fire in the Sodom and Gomorrah. After people had sinned and turned against God, he used Noah to preach to them and tell them to turn away from their wicked ways. It took Noah many years to build the ark but despite his spirited efforts of warning them of what was to come, they still didn’t listen to him.
Through his mercy he preached to them and prepared redemption through Noah and the ark. Whoever listened was saved and the rest perished in the floods. Then followed the event in the Sodom and Gomorrah whereby despite spirited efforts to make the residents change their wicked ways they still didn’t heed to the warning.
In addition, God effortlessly refused to wipe the whole population claiming that there were still some faithful people in the population that would still hold him from executing his punishment. Eventually he saves the righteous and punishes the rest with rain of fire. Through the two incidents God demonstrates merciful punishment by providing authority to choose either to obey or to disobey and face the consequences.
Good versus evil in the bible
We can arguably say that the bible is all about good and the evil. The whole essence of Christianity lies in the existence and the conflict of good versus evil. To begin with, God is good whereas Satan on the other hand is evil. Everything else revolves about the battle, fight and conflicts arising between these good and evil. From the book of genesis God create the universe and all that is in it.
One of his angels decides to overthrow him and in the process he is cast out from heaven and that marked the beginning of good and evil. Throughout the whole bible good and evil exist. God uses different people, avenues and perspectives to deliver man from evil. On the other hand the devil, representing the evil, uses all means possible to lure man into his evil ways so that he will never perish alone.
From the word go Adam is created and is warned not to take the fruits from the tree of good and evil.God, in the book of Genesis 2:17, warned Adam from eating from the tree of good and evil “in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die” (The Bible 2). The Satan lured them and they ate fruits from the tree.
After taking the fruit, it is recorded in Genesis 3:22 that: “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever” (The Bible 2).For man that marked the beginning of the unending struggle between good and evil.
Satan is evil and the root cause of all evil, God’s enemy number one. Satan continuously lures mankind into sin to deviate him from the goodness of God. It is the responsibility of each and every person to shun from these evil ways and resort to goodness. According to 1 Cor. 6:19, 20, a man’s body is the temple of the Lord, a sanctified holy place:
Or do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and that you are not your own? For you have been bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body. (The Bible 794)
The only way to avoid evil is to keep oneself pure by doing according to his will.
The bible stresses the importance of avoiding the evil. Almost all of the biblical teachings revolve about advocating for goodness. The bible refers to the church as the body of Christ.This in essence means that Christians should shun the evil and seek righteousness, or in other words goodness.
Camping claims that man is responsible for his actions “God had created him good, with every conceivable blessing; and because he was created in the image of God he was fully responsible for the consequences of his disobedience” (Camping 1).
In the book of 1 Thess. 5: 22 Christians are warned to abstain from all forms of evil “Abstain from every form of evil” (The Bible 821). According to the bible Satan, who is evil, tries to snatch away as many people as possible from the goodness of God so that they may never all the good promises that comes with following the good ways (Camping 1).
As a matter of principle the Bible advocates understanding good and evil in order to discern the tricks of the evil one. Christians are continuously advised to increase on their spiritual knowledge through reading the bible.This will enable them to stand strong through the temptations of the evil one. The bible illustrates the need of wisdom in fighting evil.
According to the bible Jesus was able to overcome the three temptations in the wilderness because he had a lot of wisdom about God and his teachings in the bible. Of particular concern are those who might want to blur good and evil. The bible, in the book of Isaiah 5:20-21 warns that:
Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; who substitute bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes, and clever in their own sight!” (The Bible 479)
Treatment of women
It can generally be argued that women in the bible have not been given the same importance as men. Most of the leadership and religions positions in the bible are occupied by men. In the book of genesis it can be seen that women only came into play after God discovered that Adam was lonely in the Garden of Eden. It can also be argued that women were created as a helper to men.
The fact that eve was created after Adam and also not created like Adam but from his limb insinuates that the two were not to be equally treated eve was to be the helper. The holy trinity and all the angels were all men. Many scholars argue that sin came through to mankind through the woman and this seemed to have set the wrong foot for women in the bible. After they disobeyed God both Adam and eve were given different punishment. For women painful birth was one of the punishments (Powell 1).
The women seem to be given more of house hold related obligations -1 Tim 5:9, 10, 14:
Let not a widow be taken into the number under threescore years old, having been the wife of one man, Well reported for good works; if she have brought up children, if she have lodged strangers, if she have washed the saints’ feet, if she have relieved the afflicted, if she have diligently followed every good work. (The Bible 824)
This implied that for women to be considered for any church favours they had to demonstrate exemplary performance in the home based duties for which they were obligated to do.
In the Old Testament mixed reaction on the treatment of women ensued. There were outstanding women such as Ruth, Sarah, Esther, Hannah among others who took an imperative place in the shaping of biblical events.
In the book of Leviticus and Deuteronomy women were displayed as inferior. It is claimed that women were considered to be unclean for some period immediately after giving birth. At some instances men were even allowed to stone a woman to death if they discovered that she had broken her virginity before marriage (Powell 1).
In the New Testament however, women get equal and fair treatment as their male counterparts. Jesus treated both men and women equally and in fact had close association with women such as Mary Magdalene. It is of importance to note that when Jesus resurrected, he first appeared to his female adherents. This indicates the importance of the role of women in a biblical concept (Powell 1).
It can arguably be concluded that women generally were unfairly treated by the general society. It is claimed that prior and during the time of Jesus the Jewish community was more male dominated. Women were usually placed in the same class as slaves, neither enlightened nor distinguished asleaders.
For instance, Jews hardly spoke to Samaritans and Samaritan women in particular until the incident at the Jacob’s well. Although Jesus advocated for fair treatment of women and in fact allowed them to be with him during his teaching he did not demonstrate the same when he was appointing the 12 disciples. This demonstrates a rather inferior treatment for women (Powell 1).
Conclusion
The bible is the central pillar for the faith and belief of all Christians. The events in the bible have diverse and intensive teachings about different aspects of a Christian life. Some of the most important themes in the bible revolve about good versus evil, merciful punishment and treatment of women.
The whole bible revolves about good and evil. God himself is holy and righteous whereas on the other hand Satan is evil. Satan tries all his best to lure man into his evil and wicked ways whereas God on the other hand presents opportunities to deliver man from evil to his goodness. In the process of delivering man from evil God employs different techniques of merciful punishment.
The treatment of women in the bible is rather not a one sided deal but a mixed one. Throughout the bible women receive mixed treatment which appears to bend more on unfair treatment in general. All in all a journey through the bible is worthwhile for anyone interested in the various teachings of the bible.
The Bible offers timely guidelines and verses that guide them to remain religious and pursue their spiritual aims. The passages, stories, and events described in different books make it easier for believers to get a clear image of the world, how and when God created it, and their responsibilities as followers of Christ.
According to many religious scholars, those who consider the teachings presented in the Bible and follow them will have increased chances of becoming part of God’s kingdom. This discussion paper uses the Bible and other sources to describe various religious events, thoughts, and views from a Christian perspective.
First Rain on Earth
One of the contentious questions many Biblical analysts try to answer is whether it had rained before the flood recorded during the time of Noah or not. It is evident that the Bible does not mention the presence of rain before this period (The English Standard Version Bible, Gen. 7.4-12). It identifies rivers and streams as the major sources of water on earth during that period. Some scientists have gone further to argue that groundwater might have been responsible for replenishing such rivers (Ham and Hodge 83).
Prior to Noah’s flood, the earth was characterized by stable weather conditions that made it impossible for human beings to experience rain. Additionally, the Bible reveals that Noah had been warned about new events and happenings that humans had never seen on earth before (Heb. 11.7). God’s promise of such floods might be a clear indication that rain had not been experienced on earth before the completion of the ark.
Noah’s Ark
The Bible does not give the exact period Noah took to build the Ark. However, some verses provide insightful information that can guide readers to make an accurate estimation. For instance, Noah gave birth to his first son when his age was around 500 years (Gen. 5.32). It is further indicated that Noah had to build it for himself, his wife, and his sons. His sons’ wives would also be aboard it before the floods (Gen. 6.18). Noah was aged 600 when it started to flood.
Considering that Noah’s family took some time to load the ark and gather adequate food, it would be appropriate to indicate the ark was constructed for around 50-70 years. This is a clear indication that the period of 120 years mentioned in the Bible (Gen. 6.3) is not part of the ark building process.
Pentecost and the Holy Spirit
Before the Day of the Pentecost, 120 people were present in a meeting aimed at replacing Judas as a disciple (Act. 1.26). However, only a small percentage of those presented during this day of Pentecost relieved the Holy Spirit (Act. 2.1-4). These were the ones who received the power to speak in different tongues.
The Bible indicates that the disciplines were the ones who were filled with the Baptism of the Holy Spirit (Tallon 52). With this kind of doctrine or blessing, the apostles were tasked with spreading the Church and performing miracles (Act. 3). These people were in a meeting in Jerusalem when they received the Holy Spirit.
Translating or Explaining Scripture that Contradict the Bible
The Bible has a number of passages and scripture that appear to contradict each other. People should be aware of such issues and make appropriate changes in the manner in which they study and analyze most of these texts. For example, a new approach in explaining the Bible is essential since it should be read as a complete spiritual book (Tallon 64). When people consider specific lines or verses independently, chances of becoming more confused or troubled will increase significantly. Such a change in studying the Bible will guide more individuals to explain or translate scripture effectively.
God as a Person
Several passages in the Bible explain why and how God is a person. When it comes to how, God possesses some of the unique attributes that are associated with the concept of personality. For instance, God is self-aware, Has a will and emotions, and possesses a mind (Psa. 139.17). According to the Bible (Corinth. 1.1), God has volition.
These attributes reveal or show how God is a person. Throughout the Bible, it is evident that these personal pronouns are used many times to refer to God: His, Him, and He. In terms of why, the Bible denotes that He exists in these three persons: Holy Spirit, Son, and Father. God the Father has a will, emotions, and a mind while the Holy Spirit fills and protects His people (Hudson 71). He also proclaims much pleasure in Christ, His son.
God as a Spirit
The most convincing reason that explains why God is a Holy Spirit can be found in different verses in the Bible. A good example is the one that states: “I pray that out of His glorious riches He may strengthen you with power through His Spirit in your inner being” (Ephes. 3.16). When Jesus was on earth, He always made reference to the Holy Spirit and the Father (Luk. 4.14-19). He also assured different followers that the Holy Spirit would descend and fill them with peace and love (Hudson 38). Since the Bible describes God’s existence as a trinity, it is agreeable that the Holy Spirit possesses or has all the aspects of God.
Dying in Christ: Glorified Body
The Bible teaches Christian believers that they get into God’s presence after they die. This means that they lose their physical bodies in order to be with the Lord (Tallon 61). However, those who die in Christ will not get a glorified body immediately. Instead, they will have to remain with the Lord until the time when Jesus will return (1 Thess. 4.16). It is during such a time when He will raise and transform them. Those who lead righteous lives will eventually live in the eternity God created for them.
God, Godhead, One
The word “God” can be defined as the Supreme Being. It denotes the creator of the universe and everything in it. The term “Godhead” is widely used to refer to the divine nature, deity, or godhood (Tallon 59). Christians use it to refer to the trinity of the Father, Holy Spirit, and Son (Tallon 65). The word “One” can be used to indicate that both God and the elements of the trinity refer to the presence of a single Supreme Being in the entire universe.
Source of Demons
The origin of demons remains unknown since they are not theological or Biblical passages to support it. However, some theories have emerged that try to provide convincing information. For example, many people believe that they might have originated from fallen angels (Hudson 71). The assumption that they originated from the pre-Adamic race is erroneous since the Bible identifies Adam as the very first human being on earth (1 Corinth. 15.45).
Sons of God: Daughters of Men
In Chapter 6 of the book of Genesis, it is described that the floods recorded during the time of Noah were as a result of mankind’s sins. This means that the interpretation that “sons of God” refers to fallen angels who descended from heaven. These sons of God decided to cohabit with human beings on earth and gave birth to descendants who would later be destroyed by floods (Hudson 102). The term “daughters of men” appears to be used in a literally manner to refer to women born by normal men on earth. These daughters appeared pleasing and beautiful in the eyes of the fallen angels.
Origin of Giants
The giants described in the Bible should have been the fruit of human marriage. This is true since angels are usually unable to have children (Matt. 22.23-30). By the time the fallen angels came to earth, the Bible reveals that there were still monsters in it (Gen. 6.1-8). This is a clear indication that such giants were as a result of men’s sins against each other (Hudson 91). It is still evident that human beings with giant stature continued to occupy the earth even after the end of the floods during the time of Noah (Gen. 6.4).
Conclusion
The above discussions and answers have presented reasonable arguments on a number of biblical issues. The paper has identified the events surrounding the building of the ark, the position of the Holy Spirit in religious theory, and the nature of God. The position and origin of demons and giants on earth has been described in details. Christians should, therefore, read the entire Bible as a complete text if they are to get the right information and eventually get closer to God’s kingdom.
Works Cited
The English Standard Version Bible: Containing the Old and New Testaments with Apocrypha, Oxford UP, 2017.
Ham, Ken, and Bodie Hodge. A Flood of Evidence: 40 Years Noan and the Ark Still Matter. New Leaf Publishing Group, 2016.
Hudson, Christopher D. The Most Significant Teachings in the Bible. Zondervan Academic, 2019.
Tallon, Philip. The Absolute Basics of the Christian Faith. Seedbed Publishing, 2016.
The Bible regards marriage as a union between a man and woman. In the Garden of Eden, God created man and woman and then established the marriage institution. During creation, God realized that man would be alone and lonely without company, hence the need to come up with a helper.
The book of genesis 2:24 (King James Version), says “therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they will be one flesh.” From the creation story, it is evident that God instituted marriage as a union between man and woman.
Although God instituted marriage as the foundation of family and society, His apostle declared that Christians could opt to remain single so long as they could control their urges and avoid indulging in immoral sexual behaviors.
Some patriarchs and prophets such as Jeremiah, Elijah, Paul, and even Jesus never married. Hence, marriage in the Bible is an issue that has divided Christians based on the Biblical interpretation because some root for marriage while others support celibacy.
Importance of Marriage
After creating man, God realized that man could not live happily without companionship and thus created a helper for him. Since the Garden of Eden was very expansive and Adam was not able to dress it on his own, God reasoned that he needed a companion and helper. When Adam woke up from deep sleep, he recognized Eve as part of his bones and flesh.
Adam expressed satisfaction in having Eve as his companion and helper. Adams (1986) asserts, “God designed marriage as the foundational element of all human society” (p.4).
During creation, Adam and eve formed the basic unit of society and thus set the precedent of marriage as a union of a man and a woman. Hence, God instituted marriage as a source of companionship for man and woman as they tended the Garden of Eden (Hanegraaff, 2012).
Marriage is also important to humans because it provides them with the ability to procreate and build strong societies that respect human dignity. God created only Adam and Eve and through procreation, they have multiplied and filled the earth with billions of people.
According to the book of genesis 1:28, after creating a man and a woman, God bestowed them with blessings and told them to “…be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.”
Adam and Eve used their power to procreate and multiply populations, thus replenishing the earth so that they could rule the world. Hence, the procreation capacity of marriage has helped humanity to multiply and replenish the earth as per the blessings that God gave to Adam and Eve during creation.
Is it compulsory?
In the Bible, marriage is not compulsory, but it depends on the interests of a person. However, catholic has made it compulsory for nuns and monks to stay away from marriage. Catholics believe that celibacy is a better option because it relieves a person from marriage and family responsibilities and increases commitment to spiritual issues.
In his concession, Paul asserts, “…it is not good for a man to touch a woman” (1 Corinthians 7:1). Some Christians have taken the concession that Paul made in Corinthians and practiced celibacy as a means of dedicating their lives to spiritual matters. Christians who practice celibacy have accepted that marriage is not good because it interferes with spiritual matters that God has ordained for them to perform.
For example, when Jesus was selecting his disciples, he told them “follow me”, but one gave an excuse that he wanted to go home and bury the dead while another said he wanted to return home and bid farewell to his family (Luke 9:59). In marriage, people experience many challenges that can distract them from pursing their missions as ordained by God. Hence, Paul’s sentiments explain why nuns and monks do not marry.
However, most Christians accept marriage as a holy institution that should form the basis of family and society. Without marriage, it would be very hard for Christians to instill Christian values and principles on families and the general society. Thus, marriage is a basic unit of family and society, which has a noble role of defining morality in the society.
Sexual immorality has been a setback, which has been downgrading the essence of marriage in modern society. Campbell (2003) argues, “Extramarital acts of sexual love are, no less than unloving begetting, attempts to put asunder on what God joined together…” (p. 266).
Owing to immorality, Paul admonishes Christians, “to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband” (1 Corinthians 7:2). Therefore, most Christian factions advise their members to marry to avoid the temptations of immorality, which is exceedingly rampant in the modern society.
Role of Husband and Wife in Marriage
During creation, God defined the responsibility of a woman as a helper. After God created Adam, He noted that he had a great responsibility of tending the Garden of Eden, and thus decided to create a helper for him. The creation story says that God made Adam sleep before removing one of his ribs out of which he molded Eve.
When Adam woke up, he recognized eve as part of his bones and flesh. As a helper, a wife plays a significant role in assisting her husband to perform certain duties. According to Adams (1986), God created Eve to help man in procreation purposes and in tending the Garden of Eden. Therefore, wives and husbands have common duties on this earth.
The Bible states that a husband should be the head of the family. Husband has a great responsibility of providing to the family and ensuring that family members have protection from external forces. The book of Ephesians advises women to submit to their husbands “for the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the savior of the body” (5:23).
Moreover, the Bible apprises husbands to show their wives unconditional love for Christ did the same when He went on the cross.
In this view, Campbell (2003) advises that husbands should not treat their wives and children as slaves, but rather they should “treat their wives as equals, assuming their God-given responsibility of caring, protecting, and providing for them” (p. 60). Hence, husband and wife have complementary roles in the family, which are essential in caring, providing, and protecting their family members.
Divorce and Remarriage-marriage
Problems in marriages have compelled many couples to divorce and remarry. Cases of divorce are rampant is the modern society because social, economic, and cultural problems have increased in the past decades.
The Bible views marriage as an eternal union between man and woman as it states that when people get married, they become one flesh and thus, “what therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder” (Mathew 19:6).
Although Moses instructed Israelites to divorce their wives by giving them a divorce certificate, Jesus said that God permitted divorce because people have hardened their hearts; however, but God does not sanction divorce.
Hence, when Jesus came, he tightened the issue of divorce among Christians by saying, “Whosoeuer putteth away his wife, & marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoeuer marrieth her that is put away from her husband, committeth adultery” (Luke 16:18). In this statement, Jesus prevents married couples from divorcing and remarrying as they please for it is against marriage principles as instituted by God in the Garden of Eden.
Conclusion
Fundamentally, marriage is a holy institution that God started in the Garden of Eden. It consists of union between a man and woman who have agreed to stay together in a marriage. Although Paul gave his opinion that celibacy is good, some religions have made it compulsory for religious servants to uphold chastity in a bid to ensure total commitment to spiritual matters.
However, the Bible teaches that to marry or not to remain single is a personal issue that no one should impose on another. Therefore, people should respect marriage by making an informed decision on whether to marry or not, and when they marry, they should understand that the Bible does not permit divorce.
References
Adams, J. (1986). Marriage, Divorce, and Remarriage in the Bible: A fresh look at what Scripture teaches. New York, NY: Zondervan.
Campbell, K. (2003). Marriage and Family in the Biblical World. New York, NY: InterVarsity Press.
.Hanegraaff, H. (2012). The Creation Answer Book. Colorado, CO: Thomas Nelson.
This analysis concerns an article by Jill Middlemas that discusses the concept of imago Dei and the seeming contradiction between different parts of the Jewish Bible as to its existence and form. It centers on Gen 1, 26-27, where God states, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness.” This passage would seem to imply that His form is fundamentally similar to that of humanity, at least in appearance. However, prophetic literature rejects any conceptualization of God, whether physical or mental, calling it idolatry and providing numerous anecdotes of how it was rejected. Middlemas argues that the imago Dei exists, regardless, and is fundamentally similar in form to a human body, but it is impossible to replicate for anyone but God, and, therefore, attempts to do so are forbidden. The purpose of this analysis is to critically evaluate the arguments provided by the author and determine whether they appear sound.
The Form of God
The Genesis passage is not the only source in the Jewish Bible that likens God’s form to that of a man, which Middlemas uses to support her argument. Notably, Ezekiel 1:26-28 states that “high above on the throne was a figure like that of a man. […] This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord” in the New International Version. The version presented in the King James Version is similar, though it makes a greater effort to emphasize that everything in the vision is a likeness rather than a specific object. With that said, Middlemas (2016) argues that the form of God is not fixed in a likeness of a man, rejecting both the gendered aspect and the overall humanlike presentation (332). Her argument hinges on the interpretation of the original Hebrew, which disagrees with the two translations presented above.
In the New International Version of Ezekiel 1:26-28, the description of God is modified by the following lines: “I saw that from what appeared to be his waist up he looked like glowing metal, as if full of fire, and that from there down he looked like fire; and brilliant light surrounded him. Like the appearance of a rainbow in the clouds on a rainy day, so was the radiance around him.” The King James Version is similar in its description of God as a manlike entity whose body looks like fire and which is surrounded by rainbow-like light. However, Middlemas (2016) argues with both translations, claiming that the original Hebrew instead means that a human, fire, and a rainbow are three separate forms to which the imago Dei may be metaphorically likened (332-333).
With regard to God’s gender, Middlemas emphasizes the repeated assertions that God is not human, the creation of both Adam and Eve in His likeness, and the overall aniconic nature of the Jewish Bible. Per Middlemas (2016), the Priestly Writer and Isaiah both present God with both male and female comparisons because to restrict Him to a gender would be to constrain His form, which would stabilize it into a comprehensible form and result in idolatry (339). I do not have a contention to make against this point, as I do not think of God as intrinsically male. He is omnipresent and omniscient, and the characteristics of both genders came from Him, so it is reasonable to assume that He possesses all of them and more. Additionally, the overall patriarchal focus of societies at the time of the Jewish Bible’s writing has to be considered, as it may have led to unnecessary portrayals of God as male.
It is challenging for me to argue with this interpretation, as I do not understand Hebrew and cannot contest the validity of the author’s translation. However, the most commonly used translations of the Bible appear to disagree with the interpretation. They agree with Middlemas in that the representation of the divine form provided in the Bible is imprecise, deliberately so. Moreover, her contention that the interpretation of Ezekiel 1:26 as a man, specifically, is invalid also appears reasonable, as she provides examples of other points in the Jewish Bible where such ideas are explicitly rejected. However, I still think that the fire and rainbow allusions were used to characterize the form of God as an entity resembling a human rather than to provide different frames of reference. With that said, this emphasis on the humanoid form does not necessarily contradict Middlemas’s claims due to her emphasis on metaphors.
The Divine Form as a Metaphor
Middlemas makes the claim that the Bible is highly aniconic, which is easy to confirm through a recollection of episodes such as that of the golden calf. In Isaiah 44, God explicitly condemns the creation of any idol by human hands, as well, stating that they are bowing to the things that they would otherwise use for everyday purposes, such as cooking with wood. The narrative is that the creation of physical idols focuses the person on the worship of the form that they have created rather than the true God, which will avail them nothing. Middlemas (2016) asserts that the same consideration applies to mental images, citing a variety of different Biblical research (323). No direct Biblical sources were provided, and I did not find the works online through a brief search. With that said, I agree with this interpretation, as the focus on form remains the same regardless of the physicality of its interpretation; humans are incapable of perfectly conceptualizing God.
With that said, the Jewish Bible contains numerous descriptions of God, both in terms of His form and his concept. It compares many objects and phenomena to Him, with one well-known statement in Isaiah 40:11 stating that “He tends his flock like a shepherd.” At the same time, Isaiah 40:25 has God denounce comparison, claiming that there is no one who may be compared to God. Middlemas (2016) claims that the crux of this paradox is not in the comparison itself but rather who makes it (328). Humans are unable to present a likeness of Him, but God may create such a form. I agree with Middlemas that the comparisons are metaphorical rather than literal and that humans cannot approximate God. However, my interpretation of the paradox presented by the statements of comparison and incomparability is different.
To me, it is important to note what is being compared to what in the different Biblical assertions. For example, the statement that God is like a shepherd means to me that there is some aspect of God that may be compared to a shepherd. With that said, the aspect of the shepherd does not encompass the entirety of God but is rather one of His constituent parts. In this way, God may be compared to lesser forms in some of His expressions. However, there is no form that can encompass God other than God Himself due to His unknowable complexity. As such, humans cannot present anything that may compare to Him in the same sense in which God can compare to other things. With that said, I do not see that this necessarily suggests the existence of forms comparable to God beyond a general assertion of His omnipotence and the resulting ability to create such a form, which is implicit without the need for a detailed discussion.
Conclusion
Overall, I agree with Middlemas’s conclusions, though not necessarily with her reasoning. I have no intention of arguing for a gendered form of God or for limiting His form in other ways. Moreover, I have no reason to doubt that He can create a form to which He may be compared, as I do not believe that there are any logical fallacies in this assertion. However, it is challenging for me to evaluate the parts of the author’s reasoning that rely on her understanding of Hebrew, which I lack, and I trust the two translations I used in their disagreement with Middlemas’s points. Additionally, I disagree with other parts of her reasoning, or, at least, do not think they necessarily lead to the conclusions she achieves. Instead, I think that these conclusions are either self-evident or better achieved through other avenues of inquiry. With that said, the article is still a valuable contribution to discourse and should be evaluated more thoroughly by someone more knowledgeable than I.
Reference
Middlemas, J. (2016). The prophets, the priesthood, and the image of God (Gen 1, 26-27). Biblica, 97(3), 321-341.